
(Guest post by Greg Forster)
“I would like to see Dems apply Orszag’s logic — that all Medicare expenses can obviously, without sacrifice, be cut to the level of the cheapest provider — to the school system.”

(Guest post by Greg Forster)
“I would like to see Dems apply Orszag’s logic — that all Medicare expenses can obviously, without sacrifice, be cut to the level of the cheapest provider — to the school system.”

(Guest post by Greg Forster)
Today I sent the following letter to the Wall Street Journal:
To the Editor:
I wish to correct a factual error in your otherwise outstanding editorial “Bashing Career Colleges” (July 22). You erroneously state that “Pell grants and other public aid can be used like a voucher for public or private colleges and universities.” In fact, Pell grants and other government-sponsored college scholarships cannot be used “like” school vouchers because they are school vouchers.
As long as we’re asking why school vouchers are wonderful for students at non-profit colleges but deplorable for students at for-profit colleges, let’s also ask why they’re wonderful for students at non-profit colleges but deplorable for students at non-profit high schools!
Greg Forster
Senior Fellow, Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)
An enormous experiment in school choice is going on in Michigan, and it doesn’t receive a fraction of the attention it deserves. The Detroit Public Schools- perhaps the most dysfunctional of the nation’s large urban districts- has been bleeding students and is now actually considering seeking bankruptcy protection.
The Wall Street Journal lays it out:
DPS’s enrollment — which largely determines its allotment of state funding — is about half what it was in 2001, as suburban districts and charter schools have siphoned off tens of thousands of students. By this fall, DPS will have 172 schools open and more than 100 vacant. Meanwhile, the high-school-graduation rate is 58%; coupled with the enrollment losses, only about one-quarter of students who start high school in the district graduate from it in four years, according to outside estimates.
But DPS’s problems go beyond the type that sank GM and Chrysler. Wide-scale corruption has depleted district coffers, which held a $103.6 million surplus as recently as 2002. In June, Mr. Bobb’s new team of forensic accountants found DPS paychecks going to 257 “ghost” employees who have yet to be accounted for. A separate Federal Bureau of Investigation probe in May led to the indictment of a former payroll manager and another former employee on charges of bilking the district out of about $400,000 over four years.
Given the longterm academic results of DPS, shrinking it in half in 8 years should be considered a humanitarian triumph. Don’t cry for the people working for DPS- all that money has shifted to schools where parents would rather have their children. Instead- celebrate for the students.
In the late 1990s, state lawmakers abolished the Detroit school board and appointed a CEO. I recall that person studied the situation for a few months and concluded that not a single business function of the district worked as it should. Contractors were being paid for work they didn’t do. The reported high school dropout rate was around 75%.
The inescapable conclusion: DPS was a money trough for adults that might occasionally educate a student here and there, but only by accident.
Further- bankruptcy could be very much in the best interest of the students in the district. It would allow administrators to modify union contracts and perhaps, gasp, make it feasible to let teachers go for academic failure or professional misconduct. Perhaps even reward teachers for outstanding work.
An interesting set of dynamics led to this point. In 1999, I coauthored a study for the Mackinac Center exploring the dynamics of public school choice. I interviewed a number of inner-ring suburban superintendents, some of whom were quite candid with me.
The basic story is that initially, the suburbs were not interested in participating in open enrollment competition for students. One superintendent, when I asked him why his district didn’t participate, replied “I think the feeling around here is that we’ve got a pretty good thing going, and we want to keep the unwashed masses out.”
As the charter schools got into the act, however, it compelled some of the school districts to defect and begin accepting open enrollment transfers. This had a snowball effect- now districts were losing students to both charter schools and school districts. This motivated them to accept transfers themselves.
As more districts opened their doors to transfers, and more charter schools continued to open, the biggest opportunitity gains were realized by students in Detroit.

From now on, any time you need care, just come ask my permission!
(Guest post by Greg Forster)
In case you missed it, you’ll definitely want to check out Stephen Spruiell’s NRO column on what we can learn about health care reform from looking at the federal student loan program. “Reform” means irreversible steps that must inevitably end in dictatorial socialization.
It’s important to begin with the understanding that we don’t have a free market in health care as it is. What we have is a government-mandated cartel. Pretty much all the problems people complain about arise from the mandatory cartelization of health care. The question is whether we’re going to stick with this lousy command-economy cartel, or switch to an even worse direct government monopoly.
I’ve noted before how the already-complete monopolization of the education sector provides a general model for the ongoing monopolization of health care. But Spruiell’s article on how government muscled its way to becoming the sole student lender in America demonstrates that the education monopoly provides not only a general model, but a step-by-step tactical plan:
On federal student loans Congress is about to take step 8. On schooling generally we’ve long since completed step 6, but the periodic attempts to progress to step 7 have (so far) been successfully repulsed. On health care we are now being invited to take step 5.
The game is pretty simple. Most games are, once you read the box top and know what’s going on.
The only question that matters is: at what point does the progression become irreversible? I suspect that if we ever arrive at step 10, it will be primarily because at some prior stage, the people who were smart enough to see what was going on assured themselves that the point of no return had not yet been reached, when in fact it had.
Business colleges routinely brag about what attractive jobs their graduate are likely to get. But we in education colleges rarely do the same. If we make an appeal to prospective teachers at all it is usually akin to an appeal to enter the priesthood. You’ll make the world a better place, we say. We almost never say, “And you’ll do well for yourself while doing well for others.” Just look at the marketing — even the title — of Teach for America.
But the reality is that teaching is a pretty good gig. Yes, the work can be draining, but the hours are great and you get regular breaks throughout the year, including a long one over the summer. The annual pay is OK, but when you consider it on an hourly or weekly basis, you’ll get paid more than the average white collar or professional specialty and technical worker (according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics). In addition, during a period of almost 10% unemployment you’ll sure appreciate the high job security. And let’s not forget the benefits, including solid health-care and an extremely generous retirement package that will let you retire in your mid-50s with about 60% of your peak salary guaranteed for the remainder of your life and adjusted for inflation. It would take a fortune in a 401k or 403b to produce that kind of pension benefit.
People shouldn’t complain about what a good gig teaching is; people should seek to become teachers and get it themselves. That’s the sensible advice that a Madison, WI teacher gave:
As someone who has been teaching for 18 years, Brand is familiar with the resentment and jealousy that her summer break elicits from those outside the profession. “It’s definitely a perk of the job,” she says, noting that people who covet her summers off could be teachers if they so choose. “I just say, ‘Well, you could go back to school and be a teacher yourself. It’s got its trade-offs.'”
If only we told prospective teachers about how attractive the job could be, we’d almost certainly draw more of them, including more of our best and brightest. Why should all those kids go to business school when they could be preparing to be teachers?
The problem is that people fear that advertising the pecuniary benefits of teaching would undermine the appropriate motivation for teachers. Balderdash! Do you think the brilliant heart surgeon is undermined in her motivation by the attractive pay?
And teacher unions cultivate a false sense of poverty among teachers in order to keep them and the general public mobilized for the next demand for increased pay or benefits. Let them try. We should launch our own campaign in ed schools of telling the world about how rewarding, both personally and financially, teaching can be.
(edited for typos)

(Guest post by Greg Forster)
Last week, for our weekly dose of pop culture, Jay wrote about the rise of mopey, whiny self-pitying youth fiction, and offered some examples of where to look for something better.
Then, yesterday, I noticed the news that next month, after a four-year wait, U.S. audiences are finally going to get another Hayao Miyazaki movie. Ponyo opens Aug. 14. Last July it opened in Japan on 481 screens – a record for a domestic film – and had grossed $153 million by November.
Obviously the blog gods are demanding that I write about Miyazaki for this week’s Pass the Popcorn! Often called “the Japanese Walt Disney,” Miyazaki has produced a series of outstanding animated movies. One of the most amazing things about his work is its incredible range – from delightful family movies that kids and adults can enjoy together (hence the very apt comparison to Disney) to great epics about wars among gods and wizards, in which life ultimately triumphs over death, but not without paying a horrible price (definitely not Disney fare).
This week, continuing Jay’s theme, I’ll stick to the lighter stuff you can watch with your kids. Some other week I’ll write about the more grownup Miyazaki films.

My Neighbor Totoro, one of his earlier films, is about two young girls who move into a new home and discover forest spirits living nearby. We gradually learn that the girls’ mother has some kind of serious ailment and lives in the hospital, and they get to see her very rarely; their adventures among the forest spirits are a substitute for the normal life they can’t have. Whether you think the spirits are real or imagined – I think the movie pretty clearly indicates that they’re meant to be real – doesn’t really alter the main point; we rely on fantasy to survive reality. (The setup mirrors Miyazaki’s own childhood; for eight years his mother was constantly in the hospital with TB and his family moved around a lot.)
Totoro’s greatest strength is its fantastically original visuals. In what has become the iconic image for fans of this movie, the girls are waiting in the pouring rain at a bus stop by a road that runs through the woods, and then unepectedly turn around and discover a forest spirit standing in the rain next to them – waiting for the forest spirit bus, which apparently uses the same stop as the human bus. Not knowing how to respond to each other, the girls and the spirit just awkwardly keep standing there, waiting for their respective busses.
When the spirit bus comes, in the form of a giant cat, they decide to get on that and see where it goes, rather than wait for the human bus and go where they’re supposed to. The bus bounds off through the forest, running on its cat-feet rather than riding on wheels.

I’ve started with Totoro because it’s chronologically first (at least, of the Miyazaki films that have gotten wide exposure in the U.S.) and is also the most suitable for even very young children. However, it’s not the best stuff Miyazaki ever did, so unless you have younger kids whom you want to entertain I definitely don’t recommend making this your first Miyazaki movie.
The basic problem is the lack of a significant plot. The movie is really about a mood. For some people this just isn’t a issue; Totoro has a pretty significant fan base. For them, the magic and wonder, the astonishing visuals, and the poiniency of seeing the girls’ lives sliding slowly but surely into this alternate fairy-world in the absence of their mother are enough. But most viewers want a movie to go somewhere, and this one just doesn’t.

By contrast, Castle in the Sky has plot coming out of its ears. It’s very much an old-fashioned kids’ adventure story. And like the best old-fashioned adventures – and unlike the insipid, watery gruel kids usually get nowadays – it’s packed with tons of nonstop story and amazing events, but it delivers this rollercoaster ride without ever devolving into mere brainless fighting and running around. At its heart, all the action and adventure are about two young people who have chosen to do their duty in the teeth of all opposition and in spite of hopeless odds, and end up loving every minute of it.

It’s telling that we have a whole genre of movies called “action” movies. In all but a handful of them, plot and character – traditionally the two great rival suitors to our minds and hearts – are equally sacrificed into the maw of mere frenetic activity. By contrast, the mark of a good “action” story is that all the action is about something – even if it’s something simple, like a boy who’s determined to vindicate the good name of his dead father, and a girl who’s determined to keep a mysterious artifact she’s inherited out of the wrong hands.

The flip side of that is that Castle in the Sky isn’t philosophically deep. I almost wrote that it isn’t about anything important, but that’s not true – a story about two bright, scrappy kids who move heaven and earth against impossible odds for no reason other than to do the right thing is about something very important! But it’s not philosophical or complex; there are no layers of deeper meaning to explicate, as there are in so many of Miyazaki’s other films.
But if you’re just looking for a great fantastic adventure that doesn’t fit the usual Hollywood mold, check this out.

I saved the best for last! Kiki’s Delivery Service is a lot like the best Pixar movies – it’s formally a kids’ story, but it’s about something adults care very deeply about, so they can enjoy it just as well as the kids can, if not better.
Kiki is a 13-year-old girl who’s training to become a witch. Following ancient custom, she has to spend a year away from home, and the movie is about Kiki’s struggle to establish herself independently. Witches need to make a living, just like everybody else, and in the movie’s narrative world they support themselves by developing useful skills – potion-making, fortue-telling – and selling their services to customers.
Kiki needs to develop a skill that she can use to support herself. But her mother (who has trained her to this point) is a little flaky, and hasn’t managed to teach her any useful skills. She can only do the two basic things that all witches can do – fly on her broomstick and talk to her black cat – neither of which seems to promise much hope for independence. And her initial experiences in the big city leave her feeling overwhelmed and discouraged.
Perhaps worse, she’s landed – so to speak – in a city where there are no witches and haven’t been for a long time, so she’s viewed as weird and alien by everyone around her. Required (again by ancient tradition) to wear a distinctive black dress, she sticks out like a sore thumb everywhere she goes. Walking alone down the street, she passes a gaggle of brightly dressed girls, briefly overhears their giggling and gossip, and then catches a glimpse of herself – darkly dressed and alone – reflected in a shop window.
Oh, and of course there’s boy trouble. She knows none of the “cool” boys will be interested in her, which is hard enough, but on top of that, she has managed to catch the attention of a geeky kid who’s fascinated with flying, and hence with her, but not so great at taking the hint that she doesn’t want him around.

Her only consolation is Jiji, her supportive but heavily sarcastic black cat – voiced, in a virtuoso comedic triumph, by Phil Hartman. This was one of the very last of his performances; the English-language version of the movie was released on May 23, 1998, five days before Hartman’s death.

You will have surmised from the title that she takes the only talent life has given her and makes that her calling – being able to fly, she can offer the city’s fastest delivery service.
But that’s just the beginning of the story. Flying becomes a job, and it’s not fun anymore. So she can rely on her flying to become independent, but if she does so, flying can’t be what it used to be to her. Gaining her adult independence through flying means losing her childlike delight in flying – because taking childlike delight in something depends on doing it for its own sake.
And then she wakes up one day and discovers that for some mysterious reason, she’s lost her powers and can’t fly anymore. If she can’t figure out what’s wrong, she’ll have lost both the childlike delight and the adult independence that flying gave her – she’ll have lost everything.
She comes to realize that the problem is precisely that she’s been so anxious to become independent, to fit in and be a normal girl, and all the rest of it. By making these anxieties the center of her attention, she’s lost the love of flying that was powering her talent in the first place.

“When you fly, you rely on what’s inside you, right?”
“My mother says we fly with our spirits.”
Childhood isn’t enough, so we need to become self-reliant, but self-reliance isn’t enough, either. Self-reliance needs to serve a purpose beyond mere self-reliance, or it becomes devoid of meaning – and as a consequence, the talents that make us self-reliant become corrupt or impotent. The mere enchantment of childhood that naively enjoyed exercising a talent for its own sake can’t be sustained if that talent is going to be what you make your living at. But if you want to keep the talent healthy, you have to have some reason to do it besides merely making a living – as one of Kiki’s older and wiser friends puts it, “we each need to find our own inspiration.”
Kiki recovers her ability to fly when she discovers what flying is really for.
Don’t miss this gem of a movie.
Normally solid education reporter, Rob Tomsho, has fallen for the Arne Duncan mania by writing an article in today’s WSJ that attributes expansions of charter school laws to Duncan and the $5 billion “race to the top” stimulus money.
As a graph in the print version of the article shows, charters have been expanding steadily for the last several years — all of which was before Arne Duncan and the stimulus money. The question is whether charters are growing faster than they otherwise would have. I doubt it. The progress of charters doesn’t seem any faster to me now than it has been. After we get all of the numbers in a year or two we can check to confirm my hunch.
I’m afraid that this is just another example of post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this). Duncan made some speeches and conditioned some fraction of a modest sum on policy changes. There were some policy changes. So people are attributing the policy changes to his speeches and tiny financial leverage.
Arkansas columnist John Brummett responds to my most recent blog post. (See also yesterday’s related post here)
Unfortunately, he continues to change the subject. The issue is not whether a summer literacy program in Fayetteville is a good program or not. As I’ve said before, I’m willing to believe that it is.
The issue is whether doubling (or tripling) teacher pay for that program was a good use of additional stimulus dollars. If it really is a great program, wouldn’t it be better to use those funds to double the number of students who could participate and hire twice as many teachers? Or how about making the program run twice as long?
Only right-wing zealots would favor halving the number of students or halving the number of days for a beneficial program.
And one small point — name-calling can be done with adjectives. Ugly and smelly are adjectives.
(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)
I’m just starting to read the Citizen Commission on Civil Right’s report National Teacher Unions and the Struggle Over Education Reform, but I’ve already found a wonderful quote:
While teachers’ unions are legitimately concerned with securing fair and unbiased treatment at the hands of management, these concerns have often been translated into fierce opposition to reforms designed to hold schools and their faculties accountable for how their students perform.
This resistance has posed a barrier to improving educational opportunity for the most disadvantaged students and closing the performance gap between them and their more advantaged peers. It has also led to calcified systems in which talented people are deterred from applying or staying as teachers because they believe their skills will not be recognized or rewarded.
Hmmm…does this statement have more than a faint echo of this? I predicted that the political marriage between progressives and education unions would come under increasing strain, and this report is the latest signal.
Question for Leo: how does it feel pretending to be a “progressive” when you are actually a part of the most reactionary force in American politics?